Or so goes the logic of the woefully misguided. Because it actually doesnít. No, while itís good in the right place, co-op just for co-opís sake is more than capable of ruining what would otherwise be a perfectly pleasant experience. Like a cheeseburger at a wedding dinner. And right now I'm really worried about the effect that it's going to have on F.E.A.R. 3. Here's why.

Co-Optimus - Co-Op Play is the Future of First Person Shooters.I think it's quite good to hear that developers are realizing that gamers truly desire co-op play in their games. Do they, or we, demand it? I think that's a bit strong. But when you design a game that for all intents and purposes appears to be cooperative and it's left out - that's when we get in an uproar.

Any time you have single player missions, you should have an option to do them with others. If you don't like the option then you don't have to take it, but, for golly's sake, how the heck can you argue against another game mode and not be a numbskull.

I don't think you actually know anything about game development. Co-op isn't something you can easily do. You mention Doom but seem to forget that games are a whole lot more complicated these days. Co-op requires significant resources; designers to make levels that are enjoyable for two players, scripters to make sure that the levels actually work with two players, programmers to make sure that two players work at all and QA to make sure that it doesn't break. Introduce online co-op and things get even more complex.

It comes down to this: Most developers don't have the budget to make both a 10 hour single-player campaign and a 10-hour co-op campaign. Therefore, if they want to have both, they must compromise. Do they make a five hour SP campaign and five hour co-op campaign? Do they make a 10-hour SP campaign and try to tack co-op on top of it or do they do the opposite? It's harder to add co-op to a single-player game than it is to add single-player to a co-op game which is why many games do the latter, much to the detriment of the single-player experience.

Lack of Co-op play is the result of the same laziness and greed corporations brought into the mix ten years ago when publishers stopped routinely releasing free updates, patches, and addons.

Doom had great co-op. Co-op, where it's just like a single player game except that one or a few friends can join in with you on the single player missions. I mean come on, thats can be the most enjoyable way for noobs to learn how to play a game. Any time you have single player missions, you should have an option to do them with others. If you don't like the option then you don't have to take it, but, for golly's sake, how the heck can you argue against another game mode and not be a numbskull.

There was a time when gamers expected games to include a co-op mode but we were beaten by the same numbskulls who think it's ok for american publishers to censor speech that would not be subject to censure under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Co-op isn't an awful idea. But the story has to be designed to be able to handle the fact you aren't a lone gunman out to save the world.

Single player will always have it's place among those who want to play on their own. While co-op adds an extra layer for those who want to enjoy the adventure with a friend.

Co-op added to a game where you play as a team works fine. Unluckily the AI at current does not compare to that of a human player so you can't require that the second player (or more) always be there.

Developers putting more focus into co-op costing SP gameplay time is a negative, but the same applies to multiplayer in most games. Really it's all dependant on the game. Hardest part would have to be balance as a second player can anywhere between 50% to 100% more damage dealt or can be used as a scape goat.

Co-op is nice when designed well including single player. Co-op is generally added on as an after thought or it takes up time from other parts of the game. Gamers really need to be realistic as to what they want, yes a complete 20 hour SP adventure that has the same with co-op and then a multiplayer deathmatch/team play mode would be fantastic but completely beyond the capabilities of the development studios that have money and time budgets.

Co-op is nice when it works, and still worth a giggle when it doesn't work as well.

The solution to this is simple: if co-op play is something you feel will ruin the experience...

Then

don't

play

it

in

co-op

Did you even read the article? If co-op and single-player are completely separate, then yes, players can just ignore co-op. However, if the game is designed for co-op first and has single-player tacked on with an AI partner replacing a real one, then the single-player experience is diluted.

Now, you're probably going to say "Well, if a game is designed for co-op, you shouldn't be playing it alone anyway!" Unfortunately, Red Alert 1 & 2 were not designed for co-op. Resident Evil 1-4 were not designed for co-op. FEAR 1 and 2 were not designed for co-op. The fans of these games did not like them because of co-op. Therefore, if a sequel is designed for co-op, these fans are screwed.

I have never played a game that wasn't made more enjoyable with coop. The Synergy mod for Half-Life 2, a very immersive single player FPS, added a coop function which made the game even more enjoyable for me. Hell, even System Shock 2 had a coop feature, though I can't remember if it was a developer-added feature or was modded in.

Not every game NEEDS coop I guess, but I usually love it when they do include it.

ďThe greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.Ē - Mahatma Gandhi

Trying to shoehorn co-op into every FPS is as dumb as trying to shoehorn deathmatch into every FPS; or even just adding multiplayer to something that doesn't need it. It's usually a waste of development resources and is only added because they think it'll make the game exponentially more successful.

People who don't want it aren't even going to play it cooperatively so it won't matter to them.

Unless the addition of co-op has drastically affected the single-player game. Look at RA3, for example. Every single-player mission was designed for co-op so even if you play by yourself, you have to have an AI partner.

I have no problem with co-op if it's a completely separate entity from single-player. However, if a single-player game is designed with co-op in mind, we have a problem.

Co-op is counterproductive to immersing the player in the game world and making them care about its characters. Why? Because you have a constant immersion breaker playing right along with you.

Yeah. Halo is pretty unsuited for co-op, breaking or ignoring pretty nearly every rule in that article -- it just completely ignores the fact that there's only supposed to be one guy in the action at any given point -- but I think it works out well when you just want to shoot things together with your friends.

In such games, I wouldn't mind adding cooperative play at all if it were added after everything else was done. That would (hopefully) keep the core game unchanged for single player. It worked fine in System Shock 2 as long as you accepted that the world would be less creepy if you weren't completely alone.